Another Perspective on Seattle Superintendent/School Board Relationship
A thoughtful piece from Northwest Progressive Institute by Robert Cruickshank about the ever-popular issue of departing superintendents.
The real story, the one the Seattle Times does not want to tell for fear of undermining their anti-democratic agenda, is one of repeated mismanagement by a succession of superintendents and of a central staff that is unresponsive or overtly hostile to the board and the general public.
About Banda, he makes some good points:
Banda cited the debate over math textbooks in his departure letter, but these are often contentious issues in any school district. A good superintendent would have navigated it more effectively, accepting the board’s decision and moving on. After all, math curriculum figured prominently in the 2011 school board campaign, and parents had been vocal in their call for a different approach. Rather than accept the verdict of the board that employs him and the public that he serves, Banda – already looking for the exit – used the issue as one of his justifications for leaving. He wasn’t a good leader. He was a quitter.
I agree with Cruickshank on that last point. Banda wanted things to be easy and when the going got (barely) tough, he headed for the hills.
The larger picture (and the Times vague reference to other kinds of "governance:"
In cities like Chicago, control of school districts have been taken away from elected representatives who might oppose mass teacher firings, school closures, and teaching to the test. The districts have been instead turned over to the mayor, on the theory that a municipal executive can better oversee these unpopular reforms.
Mayoral control is thus a deliberate attack on democracy in order to force through reforms that might not survive the democratic process. No wonder that Tim Burgess and Reuven Carlyle, two of Seattle’s leading proponents of teaching to the test and undermining public schools through charter schools, are quoted extensively in the Seattle Times article attacking the elected board for doing their jobs.
As it turns out, mayoral control is extremely unpopular, and may cost Rahm Emanuel his job as mayor in next year’s election.
What would it look like in Seattle?
If Seattle’s schools were under mayoral control, they would have to compete with all 27 other departments for the mayor’s attention. He or she would be able to devote only a brief amount of time to the schools. Instead real control would be exercised by a bureaucrat who is several steps removed from the voters.
I really like this part about what a smart superintendent - who truly cared about making a difference for our district - would do:
Seattle residents and parents care deeply about their public schools. They want them to be great. They have opened their wallets, repeatedly, to support public education. They’ve elected a school board that reflects the public’s desire to be engaged participants. A good superintendent will embrace this spirit, rejecting the undemocratic, unpopular, and ineffective “education reform” policies of punishing kids and teachers.
A good superintendent will instead emphasize the basics. They’ll clean out the central staff and replace them with competent people who treat the public with respect. The next superintendent will be a national leader in blazing a trail away from standardized tests and fads toward holistic education practices that ensure every child gets a good education.
The board and the public should be full partners in the process, and should strongly assert their duty of oversight to ensure the superintendent and his staff get it right. A good superintendent will not be fazed by it.
Cruickshank gets the big picture right.
Smart town, educated populace, public school-supporting populace (even as most don't have kids) - so why does our district struggle (and for so long)? How about what he suggests? Embrace this support/caring and strip down to the basics of education first, get those right first and then see what happens.
And yes, a good (and smart) superintendent will not be fazed by involved parents and public (nor will he/she ignore/dismiss them).
Here's hoping Dr. Nyland is just that superintendent.
The real story, the one the Seattle Times does not want to tell for fear of undermining their anti-democratic agenda, is one of repeated mismanagement by a succession of superintendents and of a central staff that is unresponsive or overtly hostile to the board and the general public.
About Banda, he makes some good points:
Banda cited the debate over math textbooks in his departure letter, but these are often contentious issues in any school district. A good superintendent would have navigated it more effectively, accepting the board’s decision and moving on. After all, math curriculum figured prominently in the 2011 school board campaign, and parents had been vocal in their call for a different approach. Rather than accept the verdict of the board that employs him and the public that he serves, Banda – already looking for the exit – used the issue as one of his justifications for leaving. He wasn’t a good leader. He was a quitter.
I agree with Cruickshank on that last point. Banda wanted things to be easy and when the going got (barely) tough, he headed for the hills.
The larger picture (and the Times vague reference to other kinds of "governance:"
In cities like Chicago, control of school districts have been taken away from elected representatives who might oppose mass teacher firings, school closures, and teaching to the test. The districts have been instead turned over to the mayor, on the theory that a municipal executive can better oversee these unpopular reforms.
Mayoral control is thus a deliberate attack on democracy in order to force through reforms that might not survive the democratic process. No wonder that Tim Burgess and Reuven Carlyle, two of Seattle’s leading proponents of teaching to the test and undermining public schools through charter schools, are quoted extensively in the Seattle Times article attacking the elected board for doing their jobs.
As it turns out, mayoral control is extremely unpopular, and may cost Rahm Emanuel his job as mayor in next year’s election.
What would it look like in Seattle?
If Seattle’s schools were under mayoral control, they would have to compete with all 27 other departments for the mayor’s attention. He or she would be able to devote only a brief amount of time to the schools. Instead real control would be exercised by a bureaucrat who is several steps removed from the voters.
I really like this part about what a smart superintendent - who truly cared about making a difference for our district - would do:
Seattle residents and parents care deeply about their public schools. They want them to be great. They have opened their wallets, repeatedly, to support public education. They’ve elected a school board that reflects the public’s desire to be engaged participants. A good superintendent will embrace this spirit, rejecting the undemocratic, unpopular, and ineffective “education reform” policies of punishing kids and teachers.
A good superintendent will instead emphasize the basics. They’ll clean out the central staff and replace them with competent people who treat the public with respect. The next superintendent will be a national leader in blazing a trail away from standardized tests and fads toward holistic education practices that ensure every child gets a good education.
The board and the public should be full partners in the process, and should strongly assert their duty of oversight to ensure the superintendent and his staff get it right. A good superintendent will not be fazed by it.
Cruickshank gets the big picture right.
Smart town, educated populace, public school-supporting populace (even as most don't have kids) - so why does our district struggle (and for so long)? How about what he suggests? Embrace this support/caring and strip down to the basics of education first, get those right first and then see what happens.
And yes, a good (and smart) superintendent will not be fazed by involved parents and public (nor will he/she ignore/dismiss them).
Here's hoping Dr. Nyland is just that superintendent.
Comments
Jose "do-nothing" Banda has left the building.
So what.
Enjoy, Sacramento!! He's all yours.
We get stuck with his expensive hires, who, in the best case, do nothing but cost us loads of money, and in the worst cast, cause LOTS of damage (looking at you, Tolley, Heath, Wright, Herndon).
-bye-bye Jose
"Here in Irvington, there is no evidence that the curriculum position has had a positive effect on student achievement.
It was our first curriculum administrator, Jennifer Dolan-Waldman, who adopted Math Trailblazers, a curriculum mathematicians do not support. Ms. Dolan-Waldman was not a math teacher, does not appear to have consulted professional mathematicians in making her choice, and did not heed the objections of parents with
expertise in mathematics.
She also failed to address a mathematician’s analysis of Trailblazers for the state of California, which concluded that Trailblazers was not suitable for children in California’s school system: “In a very real sense, [Trailblazers] is grossly inaccurate .. . [Trailblazers] gives the impression that.. mathematics ‘works’ in ways quite differently than how it does.”
All subsequent curriculum administrators, at least two of whom were English teachers, have supported Trailblazers in the face of continuing objections from parents."
CT
Your guess is as good as mine. Disingenous- at best.
The individual goes on to say board members are interested in making a name form themselves. (?) Being a board director is a volunteer position. Seattle's business groups, politicos, staff, parents etc. spew venom at board members for doing their jobs.
CT
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/On-the-Hot-Seat-Nancy-Waldman-Seattle-School-1115333.php
Thanks to Melissa and Charlie for keeping a historical record. There is a Nancy Waldman that contributed to Stephan Blanford's campaign; Waldman is connected to Don Nielsen..former school board member and individual that seeks to control Seattle School Board elections:
http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/2013/08/education-news-news-roundup.html
The lines are becoming clearer. As we know, the Alliance is behind the unfounded attack on the school board.
"But part of setting a policy is enforcing it and here's where the Board and the staff have fallen down on their jobs. Time after time, Board policy is NOT followed by staff nor does the Board do anything about it.
I would say, as someone who knows this district well and has followed Board policies for years,is that the Seattle School Board is NOT where anyone "makes a name for themselves." No one volunteers that kind of time and takes that kind of grief just to make a name for themselves (at least not in Seattle)."
I know that former Board director Nancy Waldman had two daughters but I don't know if Ms. Dolan-Waldman is related to her.
She's entitled to her own opinion (even if I think it's not valid for Seattle).
CT
I've always suspected that his is the silent hand behind many moves about the district/Board in this city. Still, I haven't seen his name on a candidate donor list in a long time (or I missed it).
For example, he writes, "A good superintendent will instead emphasize the basics. They’ll clean out the central staff and replace them with competent people who treat the public with respect. The next superintendent will be a national leader in blazing a trail away from standardized tests and fads toward holistic education practices that ensure every child gets a good education." What basics? Reading, writing, and 'rithmetic? He'll clean out the central staff --- that's a laugh. And after he does so, where's he going to find people to replace them? And what does "holistic education practices" even mean? I've been in public education for decades and I have no idea what that means. But it sure sounds good. It's a nice platitude. All of his solutions are nice platitudes. Where are the real solutions? He doesn't know because he has no experience in education.
This district has serious problems and we need serious people to solve them --- I stole that from the movie The American President, BTW. I'm so sick and tired of all these people standing on the sidelines lobbing grenades at people who are doing the actual work.
You don't agree with 95% of things I say or advocate for? Fine, but at least I have some skin in the game. I'm just so tired of the Sara Morrises, Chris Korsmos as well as the Robert Cruickshanks of this world providing their little commentary on all of this while rest of us are busting our backs trying to affect real change.
--- swk
I will say, though, that Cruickshank, like Ms. Waldman, is offering an opinion. And Lord knows, we are are entitled, as taxpayers and voters, to that. Now how well informed that opinion is can also be up for judgment.
I will say that emphasizing basics (and I have), that term - to me - means getting away from new "silver bullet"initiatives and back to:
- working for smaller class sizes
- decent food in the cafeteria
- PE, music and arts on a regular basis (and not as an add-on)
- direct teaching of reading and math (along with science and civics)
- well-maintained, safe and comfortable facilities for ALL students and staff
- more money going into the classroom before new hires in administration at JSCEE
- early interventions - at elementary and secondary level - for struggling students
- graduation supports
I could go on but those are the basics to me. I feel like the other things coming at us are a lot of wind and noise that will cost a lot and not serve kids
Are you sure that you aren't appreciated?
Its why we appreciate her.
Without relying on any resources, just off the top of my head, here's my list:
Transportation
Facilities management
Capacity management (including enrollment, facility planning, and program placement)
Capital projects
Budget (including finance, grants, accounting, etc.)
Legal
Contracting/procurement
Food service
HR
Staffing
Health services (nurses, etc.)
Special Education
Bilingual Education
Highly Capable services (as of recently)
Curriculum
Professional development
Academic Assurances (school oversight, program evaluation)
Not part of the basics, but a district duty:
Athletics
Academic interventions
Assessments
Advanced Learning (other than HC)
Community engagement (family engagement, Ombudsman, communications, legislative engagement)
Not part of the basics:
Data Warehouse
Lesson planning
I know this list is missing some departments, like IT, but IT doesn't exist for its own sake, it is there to support other efforts.
I'm also pretty sure that I've left some things off the list that should be there. Please fill in where needed.
It's pretty clear that little of this work is educational work. The education work is mostly done in the schools, not in the JSCEE. The role of the central administration is, first and foremost, to relieve the schools of the non-academic tasks. That's why I have never thought that the superintendent had to be an educator. The superintendent only needs to respect the people who are. An educator superintendent is tempted to meddle in the education issues that should be delegated to the schools, just as a management professional on the Board would be tempted to meddle in the district management that should be delegated to the superintendent.
I would very much like to see the superintendent focus on the duties of the central administration and get those operating cleanly. The schools are not the source of the district's troubles right now. Not nearly as much as the JSCEE.
I prefer to get my info from people who know the history, have seen the ups and downs, know the backstory. Not someone who steps in and immediately feels qualified to to pass judgement. I made no comment on Robert Cruickshank's commentary because at the time I had just read the Dolan-Waldman Seattle Times piece and was wondering where the hell she came up with some of the crap that was in there, and was responding to the previous poster. My comments were strictly devoted to that, as was my research to find out who she was so I could understand where she might be coming from.
The fact that she has been here only a year and 1/2 then brings up the question of who she knows/connections to get herself published whereas the people who know the history, have followed the doings of the various boards and supes for many years, are routinely dismissed and ignored. Depending on who she knows and associates with, that perspective comes through in what is written, which to me is very important, and which the Times uses to their advantage all the time to further their agenda.
My comments were also a reflection of the Times' tendency to pull in people to discuss issues that they are only marginally - or sometimes not at all - involved in, and treat their words as gospel-truth-that's-how-it-is.
CT
I agree. The piece written by Dolan-Waldman was very vague. In my opinion, there appeared to be an attempt to link herself as an assistant superintendent to SPS. What about her claim that board directors are trying to make a name for themselves? Clearly, in my opinion, this piece was written by an individual that does not know a lot about SPS. Perhaps she was coached??
--- swk
Done here.
CT
Signing Off
As for letters to the editor, yeah, I would wonder there as well.
When the P-I existed in print form, they too had a bias (and maybe they still do, I just don't read it). I used to get both papers and one was more conservative (Times) and one more liberal (P-I). But, that is the history of the American newspaper. There were papers created back in the day to simply espouse certain political parties and points of view. The Seattle Times' bias is nothing new.
It's unfortunate, though, in this era of media consolidation that we've lost any semblance of competing points of view in popular media within certain markets. That is what makes this blog (and The Stranger, etc.) so valuable.
--- swk
1. Seattle Times story with a
slant.
2. Seattle Times Editorial with
a link to the Seattle Times
article.
3. Letter to the editor
4. Issue will be brought-up,
as if truth, at a later date.
Didn't Stephan Blandford work for the Alliance? Didn't he throw a tantrum when he was in a minority vote?
Second, I wrote the post to push back hard against the Times, Tim Burgess, and Reuven Carlyle, who would all love to see the Seattle schools taken out of democratic hands and given over to the mayor to run. As someone who worked in a mayor's office, I have enough experience to say that a city takeover would be a really bad idea.
As I looked more closely at their arguments about superintendent turnover, I realized that such turnover was a sad necessity given a long series of poor quality superintendents, one after another leaving after either a financial scandal or after having made some other serious mistake in leadership. Banda always struck me as a decent guy on the occasions that I interacted with him, but it's clear he was in over his head, and quit when the going got tough.
But before I worked in a mayor's office I was a teacher for seven years. For the last seven months I've also been a parent, hoping to send my son to a Seattle Public School that hasn't been gutted by "education reform" nonsense. This district has a lot of good things going for it, but also a lot of problems. Those problems can best be resolved by a superintendent who is focused on the basics of good governance, rather than chasing fads.
And from what I saw when I was at the city, what I've heard from other parents, and seen in public, the central staff need a thorough turnover if our schools are to be given the kind of administrative support they need.